Questions about first strike

[couerdelion]

Is there something about this feature that bypasses any defensive feature or perhaps even turns defender into attacker? I’ve been getting too many combat results against archers and catapults which suggest something of this nature.

Latest examples are:

Two archers attacking an axeman on hill (one archer and the axeman have combat I). Axeman badly injured with from first attack, killed by second.

Two catapults from a city on Maceman. First catapult retreats (as AI catapults always do) while second kills the Maceman.

[axisworks]

I've never quite been able to figure out what first strike does, exactly. Every time I've used that particular promotion it hasn't ever seemed to do me any good.

[Quillan]

Not the promotion. Every first strike basically is a round of combat. If the unit with first strike wins, it causes damage to the enemy. If it loses, nothing happens. It is quite possible for a unit with multiple first strikes to severely weaken an enemy before the actual combat takes place, although I don't think the combat odds change with the reduced strength of the enemy after the first strikes.

The promotions alternate: first you get a chance at a first strike, then you get a guaranteed first strike. Archers, longbows and crossbowmen have 1 first strike already as an ability. With Drill II, an archer would have 2 guaranteed first strikes and 1 possible first strike, thus it will show 2-3 first strikes.

However, I've been having really odd combat results since 1.52. Last night, I lost 7 in a row that I had 80-90% odds of winning. Talk about frustrating.

[couerdelion]

Let’s take the first example then of an archer (Combat I) attacking an axeman (Combat I) on hill.

Attacker = 3+10% = 3.30 (1 first strike)
Defender = 5+25%+10% =6.75

With those figures the archer needs 11 hits to kill the axeman while the latter only needs 3 to kill the former. So if the first strike simple means that the archer gets a chance for a free hit then it is not going to change the odds much on the archer winning.

Now if we switch the hill bonus to the attacker the factors change to 4.8 (archer) v 5.50 (axeman). There is now a reasonable chance of the archer winning and very strong chance of sufficient damage for the second to do their job.

The same would be true of a catapult against the Maceman. They ought to do little damage but perhaps might hurt some other units. But the suddenly attack when looked at as the maceman attacking the catapult in the city and the odds start to move towards the catapult.

This is the reason for thinking that there is something more about first strike that makes it very potent for a defender.

[Swiss Pauli]

Not sure about Drill 1 outpowering Combat 1 but Drill 2 is more powerful than Combat 2 (at least for Archers).

I was guarding a barb town with 2 archers in woodland. One had combat 1 and the other drill 1. Combat 1 was picked on first attack, but after drill 1 beat his attacker and moved to drill 2 he was selected as best defender.

On the point re the AI winning at silly odds, I sort of agree but then the AI will attack so often at poor odds then it's bound to win some.

It does cut both ways as my unpromoted galleon beat a combat 1 Frigate!

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Swiss Pauli
Not sure about Drill 1 outpowering Combat 1 but Drill 2 is more powerful than Combat 2 (at least for Archers).

I was guarding a barb town with 2 archers in woodland. One had combat 1 and the other drill 1. Combat 1 was picked on first attack, but after drill 1 beat his attacker and moved to drill 2 he was selected as best defender.

On the point re the AI winning at silly odds, I sort of agree but then the AI will attack so often at poor odds then it's bound to win some.

It does cut both ways as my unpromoted galleon beat a combat 1 Frigate!

I recognise that individual combat results are unlikely to provide conclusive evidence one way or the other. My examples were ones that I had noticed in a recent game but based on a series of combat results that suggested something strange was happening. I will be trying out my own tests to see if my theory holds any water.

I also note that, by the same token, you’ve hardly provided convincing proof of Drill II over Combat II.

[Swiss Pauli]

Originally posted by couerdelion


I recognise that individual combat results are unlikely to provide conclusive evidence one way or the other. My examples were ones that I had noticed in a recent game but based on a series of combat results that suggested something strange was happening. I will be trying out my own tests to see if my theory holds any water.

I also note that, by the same token, you’ve hardly provided convincing proof of Drill II over Combat II.

The proof isn't in the winning, it's in being selected as best defender...though I'm not convinced that this is always correct: I was surprised to see a combact 1-city raider 2 swordsman defending on a hill vs horse archer when there was a guerilla 1 cho ku no available.